lO  Cents. 


SERIES  OF  CRITIC  ESSAYS. 


A  PLEA  FOR 


'  AMERICAN  HOME-RULE 


OME-RULE, 


CONTRA 


On  Account 


OF  THE 


McGLYNN  CASE 


PHILADELPHIA,  1887. 


ADOLF  HEPXER. 


;v .  • 


' 


1 


ULTRAMONTANISM 

IS  UNLAWFUL 

IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


A  PLEA  FOR 

American  Home-Rule 

CONTRA 

Rome-Rule, 

ON  ACCOUNT  OF  THE 

MGGLYNN  CASE, 

By  ADOLF  HEPNER. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

18S7 


IRISH  RO M  E-RULE  AND  AMERICAN  HOME-RULE . 


I  belong  to  that  line  of  German  free-thinkers,  to  whom  the 
idea,  such  as  in  countries  of  English  tongue  is  represented  by 
many  champions  of  liberty,  of  amalgamation  of  political  liberty 
and  religious  slavery  appears  something  strange  and  nearly  in¬ 
conceivable. 

I  freely  confess,  that  my  appreciation  of  Ireland’s  struggle  for 
political  liberty  always  was  counterbalanced  by  consideration 
of  the  fact,  that,  under  existing  circumstances,  Irish  “ Home-rule ” 
amounts  to  Irish  “ Rome-rule,”  an  exchange  merely  of  hand-kissing 
the  Lady  Queen  fo:?  kneeling  before  the  “ultra-montane”  Infallible 
Master. 

Having  the  choice  only  between  these  two  situations,  I  should 
think,  that  such  exchange  amounts  to  very  little  in  value;  that 
price  for  getting  rid  of  the  British  yoke  seems  to  me,  at  least,  too 
high,  as  to  warrant  the  use  of  dynamite,  or  even  to  excuse — as 
did  the  great  Irish  leader,  Mr.  Michael  Davitt,  in  his  farewell 
reception  at  New  York  last  J anuary —  shooting,  by  evicted  tenants, 
subordinate  bailiffs,  while  acting  under  the  hard  pressure  of 
official  duty. 

Irish  Democracy  has  its  own  peculiar  moral  code  as  well  as  its 
exceptional  idea  of  “Home-rule”;  they  are  claiming  the  right  of 
“  Home-rule  ”  for  themselves,  while,  at  the  same  time,  advising  to 
citizens  of  other  countries,  to  renounce  it. 

Such  is  the  case  in  the  noted  affair  of  the  venerable  Dr.  Me  Glynn, 
the  suspended  pastor  of  the  New  York  St.  Stephen’s  Church, 
ordered  by  the  Church  authorities,  to  start  for  home  and  to  make 
a  defense  for  his  speeches  on  the  land  question  and  his  support¬ 
ing  the  Henry  George  party. 

Mr.  Henry  George,  in  advising  Dr.  McGlynn,  not  to  go  to  Home, 
gave  his  reasons  as  follows: 

An  American  citizen  should  not  allow  himself  to  be  subjected, 
as  to  the  rights  or  duties  of  his  citizenship,  to  foreign  command. 
In  matters  of  faith  the  Catholic  holds,  that  he  must  submit  to  the 


4 


Church,  but  in  matters  beyond  the  sphere  of  faith  the  dictum  of 
ecclesiastical  authority  has  no  more  importance,  than  is  due  to 
the  character  of  the  man  and  the  reasonableness  of  the  opinion. 

In  opposition  to  Mr.  Henry  George’s  advice,  Mr.  Michael 
Davitt  deemed  it  opportune,  that  the  suspended  pastor  should  go 
to  Home,  to  present  his  case  and  defend  his  cause  before  the 
papal  authority. 

The  difference  between  Mr.  George’s  and  Mr.  Davitt’s  stand¬ 
point  may  be  defined  thus: 

Mr.  George  takes  the  dignified  stand  of  a  conscious  American 
citizen,  but  his  view  is  contradictory  to  true  Catholicism;  while, 
in  Mr.  Davitt’s  opinion,  religious  devotion  is  paramount  to  all 
other  rights  and  duties. 

Mr.  George  demands  American  Home-rule ,  while  the  celebrated 
leader  of  Irish  “Home-rule”  has  the  kindness  of  suggesting,  we 
should  supplant,  in  this  country,  Home-rule  to  “Home-rule”. 

So  the  difference  between  George  and  Davitt  comes  out  to  the 
question: 

Shall  wTe  have,  in  this  country,  American  Home-rule  or  Irish 
Home-rule  ? 

In  Ireland,  Mr.  Davitt’s  mother- country,  he  is  struggling  for 
“Home -rule”,  and  to  this  country,  enjoying  fortunately  Home-rule 
for  more  than  100  years  since,  he  recommends  to  exchange  our 
Home-rule  for  Home-rule.  How  could  a  political  leader,  as  Mr. 
Davitt  is,  ever  think  for  a  moment,  Americans  would  turn  such 
fools  ? 

I  wish  to  state  here,  how  Mr.  George’s  opinion  is  un-Catholic 
and  Mr.  Davitt’s  view  un-American,  and  between  those  twTo  posi¬ 
tions  I  wish  to  erect,  as  a  mark  to.  those  doubting  as  to  what 
line  may  be  the  right  one,  the  United  States  statute  laiu)  overlooked 
by  Mr.  George  and  unknown  to  Mr.  Davitt. 


n 

> 

i 


V 


v 


ir. 


MR.  GEORGE'S  EEEOE  AS  TO  TRUE  CATHOLICISM. 

,  Dr.  McGlynn  believes,  Mr.  George  alike,  that  the  land  belongs 
to  the  people,  while  the  Church,  based  on  the  principle,  that  it  is 
God,  who  makes  the  one  rich  and  happy  and  the  other  ones  poor, 
sick  and  shiftless,  cannot  stand  such  a  dangerous  theory  as  re¬ 
presented  by  Mr.  George’s  land-communism.  If  it  were  God’s 
will,  to  have  let  enjoy  ail  his  children  an  equal  share  of  the  for¬ 
tunes  of  nature  and  the  commodities  afforded  by  them,  he  scarce¬ 
ly  would  have  bethought  himself  so  many  thousand  years  and 
waited  for  Mr.  George’s  advice.  It  is  God  who  consented  to  the 
soci&l  state  of  inequality,  otherwise  he  would  have  changed  it  ere 
long  from  his  own,  to  wit,  by  inspiring  the  infallible  chief  of  the 
Church,  to  model  the  social  world  after  a  new  fashion. 

Such  is  the  logics  of  true  Catholicism,  and  no  man,  deviating 
from  these  conclusions,  can  pretend  of  being  a  Catholic  in  the 
sense  adopted  by  the  infallible  Church  authority.  From  the..* 
stand-point  of  true  Catholicism,  the  action  of  the  “Propaganda,” 
censuring  Bev.  McGlynn  for  his  political  behavior,  is  fully  justi¬ 
fiable.  Catholicism  cannot  suffer  to  be  divided  in  “stalwarts” 
and  “half-breeds.”  There  is  only  one  Catholicism,  unite  and  in¬ 
divisible,  dependent  upon  the  word  of  God  as  commented  upon 
by  his  Infallible  Bepresentant  on  earth.  If  this  Bepresentant, 
the  Pope,  as  Chief  of  the  “Propaganda  Society,”  declares  com¬ 
mon  ownership  in  land  a  nuisance  to  religion,  because  of  that 
theory  would  lead  to  rank  communism  and  destroy  the  inequality 
of  men,  such  as  instituted  and  maintained  by  God’s  will,  such 
proclamation  of  the  Pope  must  be  valid  to  all  true  Catholics. 

Mr.  George,  to  the  contrary,  invents  'an  artificial  division  be¬ 
tween  “matters  of  faith,”  as  to  which  a  Catholic  must  submit  to 
Church  authority,  and  “matters  beyond  the  sphere  of  faith,”  left 
with  the  free  judgment  of  any  Catholic.  But  in  reality  true 
Catholicism  comprises  and  involves  all  conditions  of  life,  moral,  social 
and  political.  True  Catholicism  cannot  afford  it,  to  let  men 
distinguish  religious  duties  from  other  ones,  because  all 


0 


human  duties  are  religious ;  what  you  are  doing,  you  have  to  do  in 
accordance  with  religion,  nothing  contrary  to  religion;  if  your 
purposes  be  incompatible  with  true  religion,  you  should  have  let 
them  undone.  From  this  standpoint  Catholicism  cannot  acknowl¬ 
edge  that  mark,  erected  by  Mr.  George,  between  “religious” 
duties  and  the  “rights  of  American  citizenship.”  For  God  is  the  * 
King  of  the  Kings  and  States,  and  obeyance  to  Him,  that  is  to 
gay,  to  his  Infallible  Chief  Representant  on  earth,  the  Pope,  is 
'paramount  to  all  other  rights  and  duties.  Since  common  ownership  * 
in  land  and  supporting  Mr  George,  the  advocate  of  that  theory, 
for  the  mayoralty  of  r  ew  York,  is  contrary  to  the  interests  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn  justly  w*as  to  be  suspend¬ 
ed  from  his  pastorate.  Catholicism  means  no  joke,  but  business. 

As  far  as  the  action  of  the  Roman  Church,  in  suspending  Rev. 
McGlynn,  is  concerned,  the  Church  is  not  wanting  logics.  If 
Catholics  choose  to  have  an  Infallible  Pope,  they  must  undergo 
tlie  infallible  consequences  of  their  infallible  choice,  too. 


i 


/  1 


III. 


THE  LEGAL  POINT  OF  THE  CASE. 

Yet,  whether  or  not  Dr.  McGlynn  should  go  to  Borne,  to  ac¬ 
count  for  his  behavior,  is  a  question,  that  concerns  not  only 
Catholics,  but  all  interested  in  maintaining  the  dignity  of 
American  citizenship.  It  amounts  to  the  question,  whether  or 
not  an  American  citizen  could  and  should  be  enjoined,  by  a 
foreign  poicer,  from  exercising  his  rights  of  citizenship;  it  amounts 
to  the  question,  whether  or  not  an  American  citizen  could  and 
should  be  punished  by  a  foreign  poiver  for  doing  so. 

Borne,  indeed,  at  all  times,  assumed  that  power  of  ruling 
Catholics  of  all  countries,  not  only  as  to  their  creed,  but  as  far  as 
social  and  political  life  is  concerned.  And  according  to  the  above 
stated  principles  of  true  Catholicism,  such  a  course  is  quite 
natural.  Mr.  George,  thus,  though  right  in  denying  Borne’s 
usurpatory  demands,  failed  to  hit  the  mark  as  far  as  he  admitted 
Borne’s  right  to  rule  Americans,  at  least ,  as  to  their  faith. 

If  such  right  he  admitted ,  all  other  demands  of  Rome  must  he  ful¬ 
filled,  too;  for  all  our  actions  may  he  referred  to  religious  statutes. 

There  is  no  other  chance  of  getting  rid  of  Bome-rule,  than 
hy  denying  to  Rome  whatever  right  of  interference  with  American 
affairs ,  as  to  political  actions  of  the  citizens  as  well  as  to  the 
control  of  that  immense  Church  property.  To  those  doubting 
as  to  the  legality  of  such  a  course  I  should  like  to  show,  that  the 
delineators  and  signers  of  the  “Declaration  of  Independence,” 
when  they  declared,  that  this  country  should  be  “free  and  in¬ 
dependent,’  did  not  mean  to  exchange  British  yoke  for  Boman. 
They  did  not  entertain  for  a  moment  the  idea  that  a  country 
could  be  “independent”  at  the  same  time  millions  of  its  citizens 
being  “dependent”  upon  Borne.  “Independence”  of  the  country 
without  “  independence  ”  of  its  citizens  from  a  foreign 
power,  is  too  a  ridiculous  phrase  as  to  be  insinuated  to  the 
great  creators  of  this  Bepublic.  I  wish  to  prove,  that  the  United 
States  have  the  right  to  legislate  for  wholly  excluding  from 
this  country  the  poiver  of  Rome  of  appointing  persons ,  oioing  allegiance 
to  the  U.  States,  American  hishops  and  priests,  who,  on  account  of 
their  papal  commission ,  are  subject  to  strict  obedience  to  the  Vatican.' 


THE  OATH  OF  ALLEGIANCE. 


I  say,  TJltramontanism  is  unlawful  in  the  U.  States,  and  in  proof 
thereof  I  refer  to  Section  2165  of  the  Rev.  Statutes  of  the  U.  S., 
dealing  with  the  oath  of  allegiance,  to  be  taken  by  all  foreigners 
making  an  application  for  naturalization. 

When  I  made  the  first  application  for  naturalization,  I  had  to 
f  take,  according  to  Section  2165  of  the  Rev.  Statutes,  the  follow¬ 
ing  oath: 

“I  do  declare  on  oath,  that  it  is  bona  fide  my  intention,  to 
become  a  citizen  of  the  U.  States,  and  to  j renounce  forever  all 
allegiance  and  fidelity  to  any  foreign  Prince ,  Potentate,  State  or 
Sovereignty  ivliatever,  and  particularly  to  the  Emperor  of  Germany, 
of  whom  I  am  a  subject.” 

This  oath,  provided  for  by  Section  2165  of  the  Rev.  Statutes, 
implies,  that  no  person  is  to  be  admitted  to  American  citizenship, 

unless  he  or  she 

* 

“Renounces  forever  all.  cdlegiance  and  fidelity  to  any  foreign 

Sovereignty ”. 

This  oath  is  to  be  repeated  by  the  applicant  for  naturalization 
at  the  time  he  is  getting  the  certificate  of  citizenship,  as  may  be 
seen  from  the  following  form : 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 

Be  it  remembered,  that  at  the  Court  of — ,  for  the  County  of  — 
held  at  — ,  in  the  Commonwealth  of  — ,  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  on  the — tli  day  of — ,  in  the?,  year  of  our  Lord,  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  N.  N.,  a  native  of  X., 
exhibited  a  petition,  praying  to  be  admitted  to  become  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States ;  and  it  appearing  to  the  said  Court,  that  he 
had  declared  an  oath,  before  the  Clerk  of  the  Court  of--,  on  the 
— th  day  A.  d.  188.,  that  it  was  bonafide  his  intention  to  become  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  to  renounce  forever  all  allegiance 
and  fidelity  to  any  foreign  prince,  potentate,  state  or  sovereignty 
whatsoever,  and  particularly  to  the  —  of  — ,  of  whom  he  was  at 
j  that  time  a  subject;  and  the  said  N.  N.  having  on  his  solemn  oath 
declared  and  also  made  proof  thereof  agreeably  to  law,  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  Court,  that  he  resided  one  year  and  upward 


9 


within  the  State  of — ,  and  within  the  United  States  of  America 
upward  of  five  years  immediately  preceding  his  application ;  and 
that  during  that  time  he  had  behaved  as  a  man  of  good  moral 
character,  attached  to  the  principles  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  well  disposed  to  the  good  order  and  happiness 
of  the  same  ;  and  having  declared  on  his  solemn  oath,  before  the 
said  Court,  that  he  would  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  he  did  absolutely  and  entirely  renounce  and  abjure 
all  allegiance  and  fidelity  to  every  foreign  prince ,  potentate ,  state  or 
sovereignty  tvhatsoever,  and  particulary  to  the  —  of  — ,  of  whom  he 
*  was  before  a  subject;  and  being  in  all  respects  complied  with  the 
laws  in  regard  to  naturalization,  thereupon  the  Court  admitted 
the  said  N.  N.  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and 
ordered  all  the  proceedings  aforesaid  to  be  recorded  by  the  Pro- 
tlionotary  of  the  said  Court,  which  was  done  accordingly. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  affixed  the  seal  of  the 
said  Court,  at  — ,  this  — th  day  of  — ,  in  the  year  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  and  of  the  Sovereignty  and  In¬ 
dependence  of  the  United  States  of  America  the  one  hundred  and 
eleventh.  P.  P.,  Prothonotary. 

•X-  * 

• 

And  that  disallowance  of  cdlegiance  and,  fidelity  to  any  foreign 
Sovereignty  is  appliable  to  the  citizen  the  much  more  than  to  the 
candidate  for  citizenship  and  to  the  native  born  citizen  the  much  more 
Sian  the  foreign  born. 


t 


t 


i 


AN  INJUNCTION  IS  DEMANDED . 


As  the  case  now  stands,  a  foreign  Sovereignty,  the  Pope, 
summoned  Rev.  Dr  McGlynn  to  Rome,  to  make  a  defense  for  his 
political  speeches,  his  political  creed  and  his  political  action  as 
advocate  of  Henry  George’s  candidacy  for  the  mayoralty  of  New 
York.  It  is  no  matter  whether  or  not  Dr.  McGlynn  by  his 
behavior  offended  against  statutes  of  Catholic  religion.  I  should 
think  he  is  an  offender  in  that  sense  explained  above.  But  as 
an  American  citizen  he  should  he  enjoined,  on  account  of  Section  2165 
of  the  Rev.  St.,  from  starting  for  Rome  in  obeyance  to 'papal  order,  as 
I  might  be  enjoined  from  going  to  Berlin,  should  the  Emperor  of 
Germany  summon  me  there.  The  point  is  not  here,  as  Mr.  George 
thinks,  whether  or  not  an  American  citizen  should  be  subjected, 
as  to  his  political  attitude,  to  foreign  command,  but  whether  or 
not  American  citizens  be  allowed  to  be  subjected  to  any  command 
whatever  of  a  foreign  Sovereignty,  irrespective  of  the  matter  con¬ 
cerned  of.  Section  2165  of  the  Rev.  St.  makes  no  difference  be¬ 
tween  orders  pertaining  to  politics  and  to  other  conditions  of  life. 
It  simply  refrains  us  from  submitting  to  any  order  whatever  from 
a  foreign  Prince,  Potentate,  Sovereign  or  State,  whether  that  order 
may  refer  to  politics  or  to  religion. 


J 


VI. 


IS  THE  POPE  A  SOVEREIGN? 

4  I  know  the  objection  I  likely  am  to  be  met  with:  “The  Pope  is 

not  a  Sovereign  in  the  sense  of  Section  21G5  of  the  Rev.  St.” 

But,  surely,  he  is. 

The  U.  S.,  of  course,  do  not  entertain  diplomatic  relations  with 
the  Vatican,  but  other  States  do  so,  recognizing  the  Pope  as  a 
Sovereign,  likewise  as  at  the  time,  he  was  in  possession  of 
“temporal  power.”  The  Pope  has  his  Embassadors,  called 
“Nuncio’s,”  accredited  not  only  at  governments  of  Catholic  States, 
and  receives  Embassadors  of  the  Powers,  accredited  at  the 
Vatican,  any  other  Sovereign  alike.  It  is  generally  known,  that 
the  Pope,  two  years  ago,  endeavored  to  institute  diplomatic  inter¬ 
course  between  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  the 
Vatican,  and  that  his  American  bishops  are  not  yet  out  of  hope 
finally  to  reach  that  purpose.  On  the  other  side,  Great  Britain 
is  about  to  restore  the  diplomatic  intercourse  with  the  Vatican. 

The  decision  of  the  question,  whether  or  not  the  Pope  is  to  be 
considered  a  Sovereign,  does  not  depend  on  the  attitude,  towards 
the  Vatican,  of  the  United  States  alone,  but  on  International  public 
opinion,  that  is  to  say,  on  the  attitude  of  the  powers  in  general. 

And  in  this  respect  it  may  be  noted,  that  the  Pope,  by  mutual 
diplomatic  intercourse,  is  considered  a  Sovereign  by  the  following 
States:  Austria-Hungary,  Bavaria  and  Prussia,  Belgium,  France, 
Portugal,  Spain,  also  Bolivia,  Brazil,  Costarica,  Ecuador  and 
Peru. 

Moreover,  the  Pope  never  acknowledged  the  present  state  of 
things,  that  is  to  say,  his  depossession  of  territory,  but  in  all  his 
official  allocutions  gave'  expression  to  the  hope  of  being  restored 
I  to  the  former  “temporal  power”  of  papacy.  That  depossession 

of  territory  notwithstanding,  the  Pope,  acknowledged,  as  to  his 
Sovereignty,  by  a  dozen  of  European  and  American  States,  con¬ 
siders  himself  a  Sovereign;  and  in  this  capacity  or  dignity  he  is 
acknowledged  by  many  millions  of  believers  in  all  countries,  and 
by  a  million  of  American  citizens,  at  least.  By  reason  of  these 


12 


«r 


facts  it  may  be  said,  that  the  Pope,  according  to  International 
Law,  is  to  be  held  yet  a  Sovereign. 

As  to  the  actual  state  of  the  political  condition  of  the  Pope, 
the  following  may  serve  for  explanation: 

Although  the  Pope  is  now  depossessed  of  territory,  it  was  ex-  £ 

pressly  declared  by  the  Italian  Government,  in  the  terms  of  the  ‘ 
PoyalDecree  of  October  9, 1870,  that  the  “Pope  should  preserve  the 
honors  of  a  Sovereign  and  all  other  prerogatives  of  a  reigning  * 

Prince .”  So  he  confers  yet  to  citizens  of  all  countries  the  rank 
of  “nobility,”  the  title  of  “Monsignore,”  and  4  degrees  of  orders. 

—  After  Pome  was  taken  possession  of  by  the  Italian  troops,  the 
-Pope  was  guaranteed  of  his  sovereign  rights,  allowed  to  retain  his 
guard  and  provided  with  an  income  of  3,225,000  francs  a  year. 

He  was  to  keep  the  Vatican,  the  Church  of  Santa  Maria  Maggiore, 

Castel  Gondolfio  and  their  despondencies.  These  places  were 
exempted  from  taxation  and  from  common  law  jurisdiction.  The 
Pope’s  correspondence  is  free.  Seminaries  and  other  Catholic 
institutions  derive  their  authority  from  the  Pope  alone. 

Dr.  Geffken,  professor  of  International  Law  at  the  university 
of  Strassburg,  Alsace,  indeed,  in  his  newest  edition  of  Heffter’s 
“International  Law”  (  Volkerrecht ),  from  the  fact,  that  the  above 
alleged  decree  of  the  Italian  Government  lacks  any  international 
guarantee  of  the  powers,  concludes,  that  such  decree  is  far  from 
preserving  to  the  Pope  his  former  sovereignty.  That  decree 
depending  upon  the  good  will  of  the  Italian  Government  alone, 
no  foreign  government  could  prevent  the  Italian  power  from  re¬ 
scinding  it. 

To  this  I  have  to  remark  : 

The  fact,  that  12  States  are  yet  holding  now  diplomatic  inter¬ 
course  with  the  Pope,  his  depossession  of  territory  notwithstand¬ 
ing,  shows,  that  before  the  year  1870  their  legacies  at  the  Vatican  i 

were  not  required  on  account  of  political  or  commercial  relations 
with  that  small  “Church  State”  of  750  square  miles  and  730,000 
inhabitants,  but  because  of  the  Pope’s  potential  and  supreme  con-  i 

trol  of  millions  of  people  beyond  the  borders  of  the  “Church 
State.”  And  that  state  of  things,  the  Pope’s  capacity  of  a  Potentate1 
since  he  was  declared  “infallible”  not  only  did  not  get  weakened, 
but,  to  the  contrary,  got  strengthened  in  every  way,  as  we  clearly 
saw  in  the  struggle  of  the  Prussian  Government  with  Ultramon- 
tanism  these  15  years. 

The  Pope’s  sovereignty  was  not  abrogated  or  annulled  by  his  be- 


13 


ing  depossessed  of  territory,  because  of  that  so-called  “  temporal 
power  ”  not  having  been  the  main-ingredient  of  his  sovereignty, 
but  his  capacity  as  head  of  the  Church. 

That  capacity  secured  to  him  the  precedence  over  all  sovereigns, 
not  only  Catholic  ones,  a  precedence  that  extended  and  is  extend¬ 
ing  yet  to  his  nuncios,  to  wit,  over  all  embassadors. 

The  exemption  of  the  Pope  and  of  his  surroundings  from  com¬ 
mon  law  jurisdiction,  that  is  to  say,  his  extra-territoriality,  con¬ 
nected  with  the  continuance  of  his  right,  to  send  and  receive  em¬ 
bassadors,  constitute,  in  the  full  sense  of  the  traditional  inter¬ 
national  term,  his  sovereignty.  The  extension  or  restriction  of 
the  political  or  military  power  of  the  Pope  has  nothing  to  do  with 
his  sovereignty,  because  the  latter  is  due  to  his  spiritual  power,  to 
the  fact,  that  he  rules  millions  of  people  without  assistance  of 
“temporal  power.” 

I  cannot  concede  to  Dr.  Geffken’s  opinion,  that  the  Pope’s 
sovereignty  now  is  of  no  international  character,  but  at  the  mercy 
of  the  Italian  Government,  because  of  the  powers  having  not 
guaranteed  Italy’s  promise  of  further  respecting  his  sovereign 
rights. 

The  powers,  then  as  now  diplomatically  represented  at  the 
Vatican,  did  not  guarantee  that  Italian  decree,  because  there  was 
no  need  for  any  such  steps.  The  powers  certainly  don't  wish  to 
eternalize  the  Pope’s  sovereignty.  They  are  merely  compelled, 
in  behalf  of  their  own  interest,  to  remain  on  good  terms  with  the 
Vatican  and  to  use,  for  their  political  purpose,  his  influence  over 
his  followers. 

At  the  moment,  the  sovereign^  should  think  to  be  able  of  carry¬ 
ing  the  Catholic  population  of  their  States  without  papal  assistance, 
they  certainly  will  bid  him  good-bye,  likewise  as  England,  to  the 
contrary,  in  her  endeavor  of  completely  subduing  Ireland,  now  is 
►  trying  to  restore  diplomatic  intercourse  with  the  Pope. 

By  reason  of  this  consideration  said  powers  yet  stick  to  the 
Pope’s  sovereignty.  They  did  not  want  to  guarantee  to  the  Pope 
t  his  sovereignty,  in  order  to  be  at  liberty,  to  deny  his  sovereignty 

in  future  time.  And  they  did  not  need  guarantee  his  sovereignty, 
because  the  continuance  of  their  diplomatic  intercourse  with  him 
constitutes  in  itself  a  full  (juavantee  d living  the  maintenance  of  such 
intevcouvse.  Should  Italy  try  to  deprive  the  Pope  of  his  extia- 
territoriality,  she  would  have  to  dflend  her  course  against  13 
States,  the  legacies  of  which  are  enjoying  there  the  right  of  extra- 


14 


territoriality,  too ;  a  venture,  the  outcome  of  which  Italy  scarcely 
ever  would  risk  to. 

I,  therefore,  am  of  the  opinion,  that  the  lack  of  international 
guarantee  cannot,  at  this  time,  be  held  a  prejudice  to  the  contin¬ 
uance  of  the  Pope’s  sovereignty  in  the  sense  of  international  law.  , 

And  in  consideration  of  that  evidence,  that  the  Pope  is  a  sover¬ 
eign,  I  recur  to  my  assertion : 

Vltramontanism  is  unlawful  in  the  United  States ,  on  account  of 
Section  2165  of  the  Rev .  Statutes ,  and  any  person,  acting  under 
papal  order,  may  be  enjoined  by  our  Federal  Courts. 


T 


r 


VII. 


CONCLUSIONS . 

1.  An  attempt  should  be  made  by  one  of  Dr.  McGlynn’s  New 
York  friends,  for  instance,  by  Mr.  H.  George,  to  cause  the  issue  of 
an  order  of  a  United  States,  Court  to  Dr.  McGlynn,  whereby  the 
latter  would  have  to  show,  why  he  should  not  be  enjoined,  on 
account  of  Section  2165  of  the  Rev.  Statutes,  from  going  to  Rome 
in  obeyance  to  papal  order. 

2.  The  case  of  Dr.  McGlynn  shall  and  must  be  the  first  and 
altogether,  the  last  attempt  of  supplanting  Home-rule  in  Home-rule 
of  this  country. 

3.  When  the  chief  advocate  of  Irish  Home-rule,  Mr.  Michael 
Davitt,  suggested  inoculation  of  Rome-rule  to  the  United  States, 
to  this  country  of  a  rather  classical  type  of  Home-rule,  to  this 
country  of  the  celebrated  “Monroe  doctrine,” — he  was  certainly 
in  misapprehension  only  of  the  gravity  of  the  question. 

But  as  to  citizens  of  this  country,  non-Catholic  citizens  of  this 
country,  native  born  citizens  of  this  country,  rejoicing  in  the  vener¬ 
able  Dr.  McGlynn  being  ordered  to  Rome,  to  account  for  exercis¬ 
ing  his  right  of  American  citizenship, — I,  a  “foreign”  born  citizen, 
have  only  one  expression: 

Traitors  to  the  Independence  of  the  country  l 


* 


3  0112  073228329 


7T 


m 


Two  New  Books,  by  the  same  author,  to  appear  next  weeks. 


I. 


Extra-territorial  Criminal  Jurisdiction 

and  its  effects  on  American  Citizens . 


-if*. 


JIY  ADOLF  HEPJVEIl. 


Mi 


ills! 


>  4.  4", 


CONTENTS. 

Chapter  I. 

Attitude  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

.  A.  Declaration  ol  the  President  of  the  U  S.  on  Extra-territorial  Criminal  Jurisdiction. 

|  B.  The  two  important  principles,  laid  down  In  the  President’s  declaration^ 

C,  Conclusions,  to  the  negative,  from  the  President’s  principles. 

D*.  Circumstances  not  provided  for  by  the  President’s  declaration. 

E.  Restrictions  as  to  the  conclusions  from  the  President’s  declaration. 

F.  Suggestions  for  future  action. 

Chapter  II. 

Founding  “Extra-territorial  Criminal  Jurisdiction’9 

International  Law. 

A.  A  general  view. 

B.  Extra-territorial  legislation,  as  far  as  in  accordance  with  International  Law. 

C.  The  3  classes  of  “Extra-territorial  Criminal  Jurisdiction”  under  Authority  of  Interna¬ 

tional  Law : 

a)  for  self-defense  and  safety  of  the  State ; 

b)  on  mutual  consent  of  the  States; 

c)  in  the  interest  of  mankind 


Legislation  of  the  United  States  on  ”  Extra-territorial  Criminal  Jurisdiction  undei  ; 
authority  of  International  Law.” 

President  Cleveland’s  mistake  is  proven. 

Chapter  III. 

French  aud  German  legislation  on  foreigners9  foreign  of-  v 

fences  against  the  State. 

A.  Text  of  the  main-laws. 

B  Synopsis  of  the  French  and  German  laws. 

C.  Criticism.  S’ 

Chapter  IV. 

French  law  on  crimes  against  the  “ Safety  of  the  State' 
and  its  effect  on  American  citizens. 

Transgression,  on  the  part  of  Franee,  of  the  limits  of  Justified  self-defense, 

Chapter  V. 

German  law  on  crimes  against  the  “Safety  of  the  State 


and  its  effect  on  American  citizens. 


A.  Acts  treacherous  to  the  country. 

B.  Acts  of  high-treason 

C.  Effects  of  the  **  high-treason  ”  law  on  American  citizens. 

D  Position  of  American  citizens  towards  those  laws,  transgressive  of  our  rights. 

Chapter  VI. 

A  German  special  law*  connected  with  Extra-territorial 
Criminal  Jurisdiction,  while  not  uuder  authority 

of  International  Law. 


A.  Characteristics  of  special  laws. 

B.  Text  of  the  German  “  Dynamite-law.” 

0.  Criticism. 

PRICE,  50  CENTS. 

Thts  book  contains  quite  new  developments,  fully  unknown  to  American  statesmen,  an’ 
should  be  read  by  all  engaged  in  politics,  legislators  and  newspaper-men. 


II. 


Amerika’s  Hilfe  an  Deutschland  1870-71! 


(America’s  Help  to  Germany  1870-71.) 


A  selection  from  the  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  United  States  Embassador  to  Parl'i 
Hon.  E.B.Washburne,  on  the  France-GennanWar,  translated  Into  German  and  accompanied* 
by  a  critic  Introduction,  in  German  and  in  English,  by  Adolf  Hepneii. 

PRICE,  50  CENTS. 

This  book  Is  published  to  the  honor  of  the  United  States  and 

be  met,  on  account  of  its  interesting  contents  as  well  as  its  introduction,  by  a  heart;|i‘p;;;;;i::!j;;:S;j|ii 
welcome  on  the  part  of  Americans  and  the  adopted  German  citizens  of  this  countr;;^ 


TOR  SALE  AT  ALL  BOOKSTORES. 


